Comments on abstract, title, references

Abstract: the main article matches the abstract,and the target queries are clear,the methodology was outlined in a clear manner, the results with the conclusions were aligned with the aim.The title reflcts the main idea. Title : sounds interesting and contains the impotant comparisons between the four sites ; which reflects the accurate representation of the paper. Reference: all are relevant and current as well as cited correctly.

Comments on introduction/background

Introduction: the topic compare the pros and cons of alll the four biomedical research gates ; the pubmed , the scopus , the web of science and the google scholar.this is quite important and impressive to all clinicians and scientists for thier references, scientific data, updates and citations. These questions and queries all answered in this comparative study.

Comments on methodology

Methodology: The process of selecting the 4 sites for the research and Scientific activity were accurate. The variables between the different four sites were equally sited with valid and reliable questions.the whole study has enough and measurable variants making it replicable study.

Comments on data and results:

The results of the raw data: The table shows multi variants were appropriately selected for the four sites and clearly presenting the targeted points of the aim of the study . But no figures no columns were labeled or illustrated the idea of the paper.on the other hand the titles the columns as well as the rows were labelled correctly, the text othe data were repetitive to the mentioned prvious ponts.

Comments on discussion and conclusions

Discussion: The citation and the period of time covered by each site , the country of origin are the main variants , discussed with multiple angles . The conclusion supported supported by the mentioned references as well as the results.Having said that we have to emphasize the important limitations of the study namely the number of the sites , alot of other sites should be involved as the-research gate , the publons and the idex . Also the variants were not enough to analyze.